Telmisartan vs losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension--a randomised ABPM study

Efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers for nocturnal blood pressure reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) is correlated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and is an important predictor of cardiovascular death in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE

Nocturnal BP control is of great importance for cardiovascular risk reduction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for nocturnal BP reduction in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

METHODS

PICOS design structure was used to formulate the data extraction. All statistical calculations and analyses were performed with R.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven studies with 13,314 participants were included. The overall analysis indicated that nocturnal BP drop varied considerably among different ARBs. Allisartan (13.04 [95% CI (-18.41, -7.68)] mmHg), olmesartan (11.67 [95% CI (-14.12, -9.21)] mmHg), telmisartan (11.11 [95% CI (-12.12, -10.11)] mmHg) were associated with greater reduction in nocturnal systolic BP. In the aspect of the nocturnal-diurnal BP drop ratio, only allisartan was greater than 1. While, the variation tendency of last 4-6 h ambulatory BP was basically consistent with nocturnal BP. Additionally, allisartan showed improvement effect in the proportion of patients with dipping BP pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that for patients with mild to moderate hypertension, allisartan, olmesartan and telmisartan have more advantages in nocturnal BP reduction among the ARBs, while allisartan can reduce nighttime BP more than daytime BP and improve the dipping pattern.

Telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide: a new fixed dose combination

Many patients with hypertension require two or more antihypertensive drugs with complementary mechanisms of action to lower their blood pressure and attain the therapeutic goals specified in internationally accepted guidelines. Yet, these latter guidelines offer the choice of fixed dose combinations as possible first-step therapies. The angiotensin II type 1-receptor antagonist telmisartan and the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide are two antihypertensive agents that have a well-recognized clinical efficacy. Their combination was shown in randomized, controlled trials to be more effective than each agent alone in lowering blood pressure, due to a dual and synergistic mechanism. Indeed, combining telmisartan with hydrochlorothiazide enhances the antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan in almost two-thirds of hypertensive patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. The pharmacokinetics and -dynamics of the combination are similar to monotherapy, and the addition of hydrochlorothiazide to telmisartan does not modify the excellent tolerability profile of the drug.

Antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers as monotherapy as evaluated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: a meta-analysis

AIMS

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are available in different dosages and it is common clinical practice to uptitrate if blood pressure goal is not achieved with the initial dose. Data on the incremental antihypertensive efficacy with uptitration are scarce. It is also unclear if antihypertensive efficacy of losartan is comparable with other ARBs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically reviewed PubMed/EMBASE/Cochrane databases for all randomized clinical trials until December 2012 reporting 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) for most commonly available ARBs in patients with hypertension. Reduction in ABP with ARBs was evaluated at 25% of the maximum (max) dose, 50% of the max dose, and at the max dose. Comparison was made between 24 h BP-lowering effect of losartan 50 and 100 mg and other ARBs at 50% max dose and the max dose, respectively. Sixty-two studies enrolling 15 289 patients (mean age 56 years; 60% men) with a mean duration of 10 weeks were included in the analysis. Overall, the dose-response curve with ARBs was shallow with decrease of 10.3/6.7 (systolic/diastolic), 11.7/7.6, and 13.0/8.3 mmHg with 25% max dose, 50% max dose, and with the max dose of ARBs, respectively. Losartan in the dose of 50 mg lowered ABP less well than other ARBs at 50% max dose by 2.5 mmHg systolic (P < 0.0001) and 1.8 mmHg diastolic (P = 0.0003). Losartan 100 mg lowered ABP less well than other ARBs at max dose by 3.9 mm Hg systolic (P = 0.0002) and 2.2 mmHg diastolic (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

In this comprehensive analysis of the antihypertensive efficacy of ARBs by 24 h ABP, we observed a shallow dose-response curve, and uptitration marginally enhanced the antihypertensive efficacy. Blood pressure reduction with losartan at starting dose and at max dose was consistently inferior to the other ARBs.

Comparison of medium-dose losartan/hydrochlorothiazide and maximal-dose angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of Japanese patients with uncontrolled hypertension: the Kobe-CONNECT Study

The objective of this study is to examine the effects of thiazide diuretics, plus medium-dose losartan versus maximal-dose angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on blood pressure (BP) in Japanese patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite the use of medium-dose ARBs. Hypertensive patients in whom BP was inadequately controlled by treatment with medium-dose ARBs alone or with calcium-channel blockers were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to a fixed-dose combination of 50 mg per day losartan and 12.5 mg per day hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ; n=98), or to a maximal dose of current ARBs (n=95). The reduction in office BP from baseline was significantly larger in the losartan/HCTZ group than in the maximal-dose ARB group (systolic BP -22.7±13.7 vs. -11.7±13.0 mm Hg, diastolic BP -9.6±10.9 vs. -4.5±11.0 mm Hg; P<0.01, respectively). The proportion of patients in whom the therapeutic target BP was achieved was greater in the losartan/HCTZ group than in the maximal-dose ARB group (59.2 vs. 26.3%; P<0.001). Both early-morning and evening BP were controlled more effectively over 1 year of treatment in the losartan/HCTZ group than in the maximal-dose ARB group (the mean BP difference between the groups, early-morning: 5.6 mm Hg (P=0.001), evening: 3.8 mm Hg (P=0.049)). Adverse changes in serum potassium and uric acid were observed in the losartan/HCTZ group; however, both changes were very slight, and the values were still within the normal range. The concomitant usage of losartan and HCTZ had no influence on glucose metabolism and lipid profiles. Declines in plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels and urinary albumin excretion were observed in the losartan/HCTZ group, but not in the maximal-dose ARB group. Switching from medium-dose ARBs to losartan plus HCTZ reduced both office and home BP efficiently in patients with uncontrolled hypertension.

Telmisartan: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Telmisartan belongs to the angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor antagonizing class of antihypertensives, which are widely recognized and increasingly prescribed because of their good tolerability. Moreover, due to the results of the ONTARGET trial program, telmisartan was the first AT1 receptor antagonist to receive approval for the prevention of cardiovascular events in cardiovascular high risk patients, thereby, indicating that its clinical importance will further increase.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This article reviews the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of telmisartan with a special focus on novel pharmacokinetic characteristics of the drug.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

An overview of the published data regarding the pharmacokinetic properties of telmisartan as well as a summary of the results from selected small exploratory and large clinical outcome trials involving telmisartan.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Telmisartan is a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of hypertension. Moreover, due to its good tolerability, an increasing use of telmisartan in cardiovascular high risk patients can be anticipated. This will grant further experimental and clinical research on AT1 receptor-independent pharmacodynamics of telmisartan as well as on telmisartan-related drug safety issues.

Evaluating 24-h antihypertensive efficacy by the smoothness index: a meta-analysis of an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the 24-h antihypertensive efficacy of different treatments using the smoothness index.

METHODS

Data were taken from the telmisartan ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) clinical programme. Eleven clinical trials that randomized mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients to treatment with telmisartan 40/80 mg, losartan 50 mg, valsartan 80/160 mg, ramipril 10 mg, amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy, or with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5/25 mg, were included. Treatment duration ranged from 4 to 14 weeks. The smoothness index was calculated according to the published formula.

RESULTS

Altogether, 5188 patients were included (65% men; 52% were using telmisartan as monotherapy or in combination with HCTZ). Telmisartan 80 mg had a higher smoothness index than losartan, valsartan or ramipril (P < 0.05), and was comparable with amlodipine. All combination therapies had a higher smoothness index than monotherapy; the largest value was observed with telmisartan 80 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg. Overall, the smoothness index was lower in men, older patients, black patients, smokers and in those with lower baseline blood pressure (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The smoothness index was affected by age, race, sex, behavioural and haemodynamic factors. It was also able to differentiate the 24-h blood pressure effects of antihypertensive drugs, with telmisartan and amlodipine achieving the highest values, possibly because of their long plasma half-lives. All combination therapies had a higher smoothness index than monotherapy. An understanding of the relative effects of different antihypertensives on the smoothness index may help to differentiate their effectiveness in reducing blood pressure-related cardiovascular risk.

Ambulatory monitoring of systolic hypertension in the elderly: Eprosartan/hydrochlorothiazide compared with losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (INSIST trial)

INTRODUCTION

Systolic hypertension is very common in the elderly and is strongly associated with the risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. The control of systolic hypertension is difficult and most patients require combination antihypertensive therapy. Few data are available regarding the efficacy of angiotensin II receptor antagonists on systolic hypertension of the elderly. The aim of this double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study was to assess the efficacy of eprosartan 600 mg in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg in comparison with losartan 50 mg in combination with HCTZ 12.5 mg, in reducing blood pressure in elderly patients with grade 2 systolic hypertension who did not optimally respond to eprosartan or losartan monotherapy.

METHODS

After a 3-week placebo wash-out, 155 patients with an Office trough sitting systolic blood pressure (Office sitSBP) >or=160 mmHg and <180 mmHg were randomized to eprosartan 600 mg (n=78) or losartan 50 mg (n=77) once daily for 6 weeks. In patients not optimally responding to monotherapy (Office sitSBP>or=130 mmHg) 12.5 mg HCTZ was added as fixed combination once daily for 6 weeks. A 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed at the end of wash-out and at the end of the fixed-combination period.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found between eprosartan/HCTZ and losartan/HCTZ on the primary endpoint (24-hour ABPM SBP) with an adjusted mean difference between treatments of 3.1 mmHg (95% CI: -0.32-6.59). However, the mean 24-hour ABPM SBP significantly decreased by 16.7 mmHg with eprosartan/HCTZ and 20.3 mmHg with losartan/HCTZ (P<0.001 vs. baseline). The mean Office sitSBP significantly decreased by 28.7 mmHg and 29.6 mmHg respectively, with eprosartan/HCTZ and losartan/HCTZ (P<0.001 vs.baseline and vs. monotherapy).

CONCLUSION

In this study, eprosartan/HCTZ did not demonstrate to be superior to losartan/HCTZ in reducing ABPM systolic hypertension in the elderly.

Impact of angiotensin receptor blockade in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in 2121 patients with stage 1-2 hypertension

The antihypertensive effects of telmisartan 80 mg versus valsartan 160 mg, both combined with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg, were assessed in a pooled analysis from two large trials with identical study designs in patients with stage 1-2 hypertension. The trials were double-blind with a 4:4:1 randomization scheme to compare once-daily telmisartan 80 mg and HCTZ 25 mg versus once-daily valsartan 160 mg and HCTZ 25 mg versus once-daily placebo on reductions in clinic blood pressure (BP). The primary end point was changes from baseline in BP at the end of 8 weeks. In total, 2121 patients were randomized (telmisartan-HCTZ, 942, valsartan-HCTZ, 952, and placebo, 227) and had baseline seated BPs of 154/102 and 155/102 mm Hg in the two studies, respectively. Changes from baseline in BP after administration of telmisartan-HCTZ (-24.5/-18.0 mm Hg) were significantly greater than for both placebo (-4.1/-6.5 mm Hg) and valsartan-HCTZ (-22.3/-16.8 mm Hg) (versus placebo, P<0.0001 for systolic and diastolic BP; versus valsartan-HCTZ, P=0.0004 for systolic BP and P=0.0019 for diastolic BP). Adverse event rates were higher in the placebo group than in the active treatment groups (placebo, 41%, telmisartan-HCTZ, 30%, and valsartan-HCTZ, 30%, P<0.05). These data confirm that telmisartan-HCTZ at doses of 80/25 mg lowered systolic and diastolic BP to a greater extent than valsartan-HCTZ at doses of 160/25 mg in stage 1-2 hypertension. The magnitude of the BP-lowering effect provides support for the use of angiotensin receptor blockers with higher doses of a thiazide diuretic (25 mg) to improve hypertension control.

Antihypertensive activity of angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists: a systematic review of studies with 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the antihypertensive activity of the angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists (ARB).

METHODS

Studies in which blood pressure (BP) was measured using ambulatory BP monitoring for at least 24 h were collected from MEDLINE. Data for each treatment group, ARB, placebo or the drug used for its comparison were obtained from the selected studies. Only studies with a minimum of quality criteria were selected. The final study group contained 36 publications, with a total of 47 patient cohorts receiving ARB in monotherapy, 10 with placebo, 10 with amlodipine, and five with enalapril. The reduction in clinical and ambulatory BP during 24 h, day, night and the last 4-h period for each of the drugs analysed were calculated and adjusted by age, sex, number of participants and by the initial BP level.

RESULTS

The global antihypertensive activity of ARB differs from that observed with amlodipine in the sense that the magnitude of the reduction in the BP values does not essentially depend on the initial BP values nor on the dose used. When only ARB were considered, the drug used was a determinant for systolic BP reduction, whereas for diastolic BP the influence was on the BP reduction and the duration of the antihypertensive activity. The dose used had a particular influence on the duration of the antihypertensive activity for both systolic and diastolic BP.

CONCLUSION

Among the ARB, the influence is on duration more than on the magnitude of BP reduction. Dose, therefore, is an important factor in the duration of antihypertensive activity.

Intraindividual Blood Pressure Responses to Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme Inhibition and Angiotensin Receptor Blockade

This study aims to test the hypothesis that in some hypertensive subjects the blood pressure (BP) response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition differs from that to angiotensin receptor blockade (ARB); a responder to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition may not respond to ARB or the opposite. A randomized, open-label, crossover, comparative trial of lisinopril 20 mg compared with telmisartan 80 mg (5 weeks per treatment period) was conducted in 32 untreated hypertensives using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Subjects were classified as "responders" and "nonresponders" using an arbitrary threshold of ambulatory BP response (> or =10 mm Hg systolic or > or =5 diastolic) or the median response achieved by each drug. No difference was detected between the drugs in their effect on ambulatory BP (mean difference 1.2+/-7.1/0.7+/-5.1 mm Hg, systolic/diastolic). Significant correlations were found between the antihypertensive responses to the two drugs (r=0.77, p<0.001). Using the arbitrary response criterion, there was a difference between the drugs in the responses in 28%/13% of subjects (9/4 patients) for systolic/diastolic BP (19%/25% using the median response criterion). These data suggest that in some hypertensive patients the BP response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition may fail to predict the response to ARB. It appears that there are differences in the antihypertensive action of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and ARBs that may be clinically important.

Effects of the Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Telmisartan vs Valsartan in Combination With Hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg Once Daily for the Treatment of Hypertension

To attain recent goals of blood pressure (BP) control, multiple drug therapy combinations are required, including higher doses of thiazide diuretics in combination with other classes of antihypertensive drug therapy. Thus, the authors evaluated the antihypertensive effects of telmisartan vs valsartan when combined with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg in a large (N=1066), placebo-controlled trial in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension. The primary end points were the changes from baseline in seated diastolic and systolic BP at the end of the 8-week treatment period. Safety end points included adverse events, changes in laboratory parameters, and pulse rate. Changes from baseline in BP following telmisartan-HCTZ (-24.0/-17.6 mm Hg) were significantly greater than both placebo (-4.4/-6.8 mm Hg) and valsartan-HCTZ (-21.2/-16.1 mm Hg) (vs placebo, P<.001 for systolic and diastolic BP; vs valsartan-HCTZ, P=.004 for systolic BP and P=.019 for diastolic BP). The total number of patients with at least 1 adverse event reported were similar among the 3 treatment groups (placebo, 49%; telmisartan-HCTZ, 43%; and valsartan-HCTZ, 38%). In conclusion, telmisartan-HCTZ at doses of 80/25 mg lowered both systolic and diastolic BP to a greater extent than valsartan-HCTZ at doses of 160/25 mg. These data support using a higher dose of a thiazide diuretic (25 mg) with a long-acting angiotensin receptor blocker as a useful strategy for improving hypertension control.

Targeting effective blood pressure control with angiotensin receptor blockers

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have become established as a major class of antihypertensive on the basis of their powerful effects on blood pressure (BP), excellent tolerability and pleiotropic end-organ-protective effects. However, individual ARBs vary in antihypertensive efficacy, which may be important to clinical outcome. Several strategies are available to ensure that BP reductions with ARBs are at least as great as that which can be achieved with other antihypertensive classes. Firstly, several newer ARBs, including irbesartan, candesartan, telmisartan and olmesartan, have been reported to provide equivalent antihypertensive efficacy to amlodipine and greater efficacy than either losartan, valsartan or both. Secondly, increases in dose may improve the antihypertensive efficacy of agents such as valsartan, although clinical studies are necessary to provide characterisation of new, higher-dose monotherapies. Thirdly, fixed dose combinations with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) increase the antihypertensive effect of all ARBs. It is likely that differences in efficacy between newer and older ARBs will in some cases be sustained in combination therapy, such that the most potent ARBs and HCTZ will provide another tier of control. The future use of ARBs is likely to involve a growing emphasis on compound-specific data, with regard to the antihypertensive efficacy and pleiotropic protective actions of agents.

Effects of oral fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan plus ramipril and losartan plus ramipril in hypertension: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase iii trial in adult indian patients

BACKGROUND

A new oral fixed-dose combination (FDC) of telmisartan plus ramipril is being introduced in India for the treatment of patients with stage 2 hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of an oral FDC of telmisartan plus ramipril with those of an oral FDC of losartan plus ramipril in adult Indian patients with stage 2 hypertension.

METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase III study was conducted at 5 centers in India. Indian patients aged 18 to 65 years with uncomplicated stage 2 essential hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP], >160/>100 mm Hg) were enrolled. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive telmisartan 40 mg plus ramipril 5 mg (T + R) or losartan 50 mg plus ramipril 5 mg (L + R), PO (tablet) QD (before the morning meal) for 8 weeks. Supine blood pressure (BP) was measured at 0 (baseline) and 8 weeks of treatment. The primary end point was the mean reduction from baseline in BP. Responders were classified as patients who had a DBP <90 mm Hg at the end of 8 weeks of therapy. Tolerability was assessed using spontaneous reports of adverse events (AEs) during the follow-up visits and laboratory analyses performed at week 8.

RESULTS

A total of 289 patients were enrolled (155 men, 134 women; mean age, 50.74 years). Of these, 8 patients in the T + R group and 7 in the L + R group were lost to follow-up and considered withdrawals. At the end of week 8, the mean percentage reduction in SBP was significantly greater in the T + R group compared with that in the L + R group (24.1% vs 19.4%; P < 0.05). The mean percentage reduction in DBP was also significantly greater in the T + R group compared with that in the L + R group (17.3% vs 12.5%; P < 0.05). The response rates in the T + R and L + R groups were statistically similar (79.1% vs 68.7%). The most common AEs in the T + R and L + R groups were cough (9 [6.1%] and 11 [7.8%] patients, respectively) and headache (7 [4.7%] and 8 [5.7%] patients, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The results in this study in Indian patients with stage 2 essential hypertension suggest that the FDC of T + R controlled BP more effectively compared with the FDC of L + R over 8 weeks. The response rates were similar between the 2 groups. Both treatments were well tolerated.

Lowering blood pressure for cardiovascular risk reduction

The association between blood pressure and cardiovascular risk is continuous, with no known lower threshold; epidemiologically, the lower the blood pressure, the better. In reality, the relationship must be J- or U-shaped, as a blood pressure of zero is associated with 100% mortality. However, the level of blood pressure control below which risk increases is well below that achieved in clinical practice, and reducing blood pressure is a cornerstone of strategies to reduce cardiovascular risk. Even relatively small reductions in blood pressure (systolic blood pressure 10-12 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure 5-6 mmHg) substantially reduce cardiovascular risk. Optimal cardiovascular protection is achievable through early and aggressive blood pressure control, but precisely which agents confer the greatest benefits for cardiovascular protection remains widely debated. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) appear to be unique in providing additional protection beyond blood pressure control, whereas similar claims for other agents do not withstand close scrutiny. Nearly all patients with hypertension require several antihypertensive treatments to reach their target blood pressure, and it is important to choose treatments that are well tolerated and have complementary modes of action. For this reason, ARBs such as telmisartan emerge as logical choices for combination therapy, particularly when combined with a diuretic, as they fulfil all the essential requirements for combination therapy and are effective in a wide range of different types of patient. Regrettably, a rigorous approach to blood pressure control using multiple agents is still rare in general practice, partly because of a lack of understanding and partly because of 'professional non-compliance'. Prescribing habits must change, and soon, if we are to avoid an upsurge in cardiovascular complications.

Emerging drugs in the management of hypertension

Hypertension is a global health problem, affecting developing and developed countries alike. Most patients with hypertension are undiagnosed, and most diagnosed patients are either untreated or inadequately treated. Randomised controlled trial evidence suggests diuretic therapy for hypertension is as effective as newer drugs in reducing cardiovascular events. There is good evidence for the use of specific classes of drugs in hypertensive patients with a variety of associated clinical conditions, but for uncomplicated cases, the current emphasis in hypertension management is on blood pressure lowering rather than drug class. Individual patients vary in their responses to different drug classes, and optimal therapy for the individual is determined by trial and error. Pharmacogenomics may assist in tailoring therapy for individuals in the future. Emerging drugs include newer members of classes already established in clinical practice, for example, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, calcium antagonists and centrally acting drugs; newer fixed-dose combination therapies; and more novel therapies, for example, endothelin (ET) receptor antagonists, activators of nitric oxide (NO)-sensitive guanylyl cyclase and vasopeptidase inhibitors.

Effect of Telmisartan on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring, Plasma Brain Natriuretic Peptide, and Oxidative Status of Serum Albumin in Hemodialysis Patients

The effect of telmisartan on ambulatory blood pressure, plasma neurohormonal parameters, and oxidation of serum albumin has not been investigated in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Thirteen hypertensive HD patients were treated with 40 mg telmisartan once daily, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed after 0, 4, and 8 weeks of treatment. Plasma renin activity, plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level, and serum oxidized albumin level were determined at the same time points. Serum telmisartan concentration was also measured at 4 and 8 weeks. Telmisartan significantly reduced systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (both awake and sleeping) after 4 weeks, and these pressures showed a further significant decrease after 8 weeks. Plasma levels of aldosterone, BNP, and serum oxidized albumin were markedly decreased after 4 weeks and these lower levels were maintained at 8 weeks. The trough serum telmisartan concentration was not significantly different at 8 weeks compared with 4 weeks. Throughout the treatment period, there were no significant adverse effects. Telmisartan effectively lowers blood pressure and reduces PAC, BNP, and oxidative stress and is safe and well-tolerated by HD patients. A long-term study in a large population is required to determine the influence of telmisartan therapy on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in HD patients.